Where ML earns its keep
ML is a strong fit when the pattern is real but too complex for hand-coded rules, when labels are abundant and reliable, when mistakes are recoverable or low-stakes, and when the data distribution does not shift faster than you can retrain. Tabular ranking, fraud scoring, demand forecasting, recommendations, and image triage are classic wins.
Where ML is a bad first choice
- The rule already works and is auditable. Replacing it adds risk for no gain.
- Mistakes are catastrophic and irreversible. Do not let an ML score be the only safety net.
- Labels are scarce, ambiguous, or contested. The model will encode the disagreement.
- The world drifts faster than you can ship a new model.
- The decision is regulated and requires a human reason for every outcome.
Compare the non-ML alternatives
Improving search, changing an input form, automating a stable rule, or giving a human a better priority queue can create more value with less risk. Compare accuracy, build time, auditability, rollback, and staffing rather than treating “no model” as doing nothing. A slightly weaker rule may win after lifecycle cost is counted.
Triaging an idea in five minutes
For each ML idea, score four dimensions on a 1-5 scale: pattern complexity, label availability, mistake reversibility, and drift speed. Anything with two or more scores below 3 needs a non-ML alternative or a much smaller scope before you commit to a model. The score is a conversation aid, not proof; validate a promising idea against a simple baseline and a small field test.